Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	david_n	king_n	son_n	5,341	5	5.7345	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74854	Two treatises concerning the matter of the Engagement. The first of an unknown author, excepting against Mr. Dureus Considerations for the taking of the Engagement, to shew the unsatisfactoriness thereof. : The second of Mr. Dureus maintaining the satisfactoriness of his considerations against the unknown authors exceptions.	Dury, John, 1596-1680.	1650 (1650)	Thomason E615_12; ESTC P1074	53,095	64

any private spleen but in his zeal to the house of Israel and of Judah but none of these did sway with those Covenanters and God himself acquits them from any mistake in the Obligation of that their Covenant in his proceeding against the house of Saul before observed when private men swear to their hurt they must not change when States swear they may not change there is no security without God from any danger it is more safe to keep with God though seemingly we run upon peri I then to quit the wayes of God deserting him for prevention to speak the fairest these reasonings come from unbelief You go on and say You see what pinches your friend He thinks that they that made the change broke the Covenant and if he engage under this change as is desired he thinks he breaks the Covenant also To which you answer First That they who made the change will plead for themselves that they are not guilty of any breach of Covenant notwithstanding the change But this you leave to them to justifie And seeing you will not justifie them I shall not stand to implead them your Reader being fully satisfied that your own pen in your former confession hath already done it Secondly you answer For the consequence your friends make from the taking of the Engagement to a breach of the Covenant it doth not at all follow to your understanding for the direct and plain matter of the Engagement binds him onely to procure the good of the Common-wealth as now it stands and because at all times and in all constitutions thereof he is bound to do this no less by the Covenant it self then by the Engagement therefore his taking of this to this effect can be no breach of that which you endeavour to make good by a comment upon the words of the Engagement for the negative words without a King and a house of Lords in the Engagement may as you say be properly and most obviously taken as an explication of the words now established immediatly going before and not an absolute abnegation of the things looked upon truly and as in themselves with more words to the same purpose which gloss of yours calls for some observation and well deserves animadversion First necessarily implying a high charge of such inconsiderateness in the heads of those that did devise and in the power of those that do impose this Engagement of which none can believe that they are guilty 1. They knew that all the Subjects of this Nation stood before engaged to the intrinsecal good of this Common-wealth as by the dictates of nature the obligation of reason self-preservation which each one knows is wrapt up in the publick so also by an oath prescribed by their power since they entred upon it reaching doubtless thus far and as some conjecture intended further that which was already done to their hands as you say by so many Oaths and Covenants which themselves also since their investiture in power had done they will not do over again in words not at all further obliging but onely perplexing amusing and insnaring 2. They know that the Engagement in this sense will nothing tend to their establishment as before hath been evidenced yea they know with this gloss upon it it hath a full tendency to their further danger not a few being perswaded how erroneously soever that the publick good is best provided for and consequently the Engagement answered in their opposition all of which is so clear to every eye that it could not be hid from those that imposed this Engagement so that none can think that they would trouble the consciences of so many thousands in such a needless way to their own non-benefit yea to their further peril If the Covenant mentioning Monarchy in a King do tye us to a republick in a State as you before affirm then the Engagement mentioning a republick without King or house of Lords may tye us to Monarchy by the same reason Secondly This gloss carrys a full contradiction in it self you say these words without King house of Lords may be properly and most obviously taken as an explication of the word as now established immediatly going before and not an absolute negation of the things themselves when as those words as now established do fully imply that abnegation of Kings Lords which you there mention now being an adverb of time the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Engagement must needs stand in full opposition to the face of things in former administrations it cannot look on the Common-weale abstractively as the same in all revolutions and junctures of times but as it now stands in a present different posture as now is a full contradiction to your sense as ever And I pray you consider whether the powers now established without King and Lords have not voted down both King and Lords as useless and dangerous and therfore now established is no other then an abnegation of Kings and Lords heretofore established therefore your friend being in this pinched is not yet eased You go on as discerning that what is said will not hold Suppose say you that in your apprehens●●● of matters this Engagement doth materially settle some thing in the Common-wealth which is contrary to the intention which you had in taking the Covenant yet I say that by giving your assent thereunto as matters now stand you break not at all your Covenant because your obligation to those matters by vertue of the Covenant was extinguished before you were called upon to take this Engagement now that which is extinct and made void cannot be said to oblige any more This supposition of yours is wholly yielded by others that it is in full opposition to the Covenant and other Oaths and so all your labour lost in endeavouring to reconcile them and this which you now bring is onely held out for a Plea to carry it in the affirmative that the Engagement may be entered malè res agitur cum tot opus est remediis is wont to be said for your Proposition that that which is extinct and made void can no more oblige must be acknowledged as truth with its just limitation provided that those concerned in the Oath have no hand in the extinguishing of it for their own disobligation David was bound by Covenant unto Jonathan and his seed after him had he consented to the death of Mephibosheth the Son of Jonathan the matter of the Covenant had then been extinct and yet David had been guilty of the breach of it for your assumption that the matter of the Covenant as to the third Article is extinct it being impossible in nature to preserve the Kings life now it is cut off and the house of Lords now it is put down I shall not stand upon that maxime the King never dyes and so though the man be cut off yet the King remains and may be preserved if you please to look into the Preface of the